Let us suppose that the electorate follows a normal distribution. We have 3 candidates:

• Righty
• Centrist
• Lefty

In head-towhead, they get:

Righty:
40%
Centrist:
60%

Centrist:
60%
Lefty:
40%

Righty:
50%
Lefty:
50%

Centrist is the Condorcet-Winner.

In Plurality we get:

Righty:
40%

Centrist:
20%

Lefty:
40%

Under Plurality, Centrist, the Condorcet-Winner, finishes last due to Center-squeese.

Let us try IRV:

The 1st candidate eliminated is Centrist, the Condorcet-Winner. Surely, this cannot be because IRV cures all electoral ills. ¡It is basic math! The numbers do not lie.

40%

1. Righty
2. Centrist
3. Lefty

10%

1. Centrist
2. Righty
3. Lefty

10%

1. Centrist
2. Lefty
3. Righty

40%

1. Lefty
2. Centrist
3. Righty

Because Centris go only 20% of the 1st-Place vote, Centrist, the Condorcet winner looses.

Let us try Approval:

Righty:
40%

Centrist:
60%

Lefty:
40%

¡Centrist, the Condorcet-Winner, wins!

Ah, so I see you're getting into politics.

7729919

I have always been into electoral mathematics. I write this to show that IRV is terrible system and that Approval works much better. I use this approach instead of starting by stating the simple true fact the IRV is a false reform, designed to block true reform. All of the 3rd-Party and independent votes go to the 2 major parts. When I started with IRV being a false reform, I get into arguments and never get to the mathematics. I find that it better to show the indisputable mathematics 1st, and then point out that IRV is a false reform.

7730153
Australia uses IRV and they have a two party system.

7730180

¡Exactly!:

The 2 parties (Duverger's Law) had an electorate demanding reform as false reform preserving 2-party dominance.

That is why I start with the mathematics before the history:

If I say to somepony grasping at straws that IRV is a false reform, they argue and one never gets to the mathematics. I start with the mathematics. Ponies cannot argue against the numbers.

It is not fair to ignore the 1 good thing about tIRV:

Although IRV transfer votes to the 2 major established parties, it does let the correct party:

If we would have used IRV in 2000, Gore would have carried New Hampshire and Florida. If Gore would have carried either of these 2 states, he would have won:

> "IRV, sure, it does not let 3rd parties and independents win, but it does allow the correct 1 of the 2 major parties to win."